YLS professor GAPES liberals in lengthy screed (article
| Adulterous Heaven | 03/23/15 | | Adulterous Heaven | 03/23/15 | | Vermilion high-end boltzmann plaza | 03/23/15 | | Adulterous Heaven | 03/23/15 | | Soul-stirring nudist church feces | 03/23/15 | | Know-it-all principal's office pisswyrm | 11/08/15 | | histrionic splenetic elastic band | 11/08/15 | | Adventurous nibblets | 03/23/15 | | Tan multi-colored turdskin mad cow disease | 03/23/15 | | Adventurous nibblets | 03/23/15 | | Crawly university marketing idea | 03/23/15 | | Adventurous nibblets | 03/23/15 | | Crawly university marketing idea | 03/23/15 | | Adventurous nibblets | 03/23/15 | | Crawly university marketing idea | 03/23/15 | | Adventurous nibblets | 03/23/15 | | wild vigorous locus | 03/23/15 | | Adventurous nibblets | 03/23/15 | | racy abode | 03/23/15 | | Adventurous nibblets | 03/23/15 | | Crawly university marketing idea | 03/23/15 | | racy abode | 03/23/15 | | Adulterous Heaven | 03/23/15 | | Indigo bateful masturbator | 11/08/15 | | excitant fuchsia ratface personal credit line | 04/24/16 | | Heady sanctuary | 04/24/16 | | Outnumbered bonkers station | 11/08/15 | | flesh public bath | 04/24/16 | | Soul-stirring nudist church feces | 03/23/15 | | Soul-stirring nudist church feces | 03/25/15 | | Adulterous Heaven | 03/25/15 | | Adulterous Heaven | 03/25/15 | | curious dilemma water buffalo | 11/08/15 | | glassy dashing windowlicker | 04/24/16 | | histrionic splenetic elastic band | 11/08/15 | | curious dilemma water buffalo | 11/08/15 | | jade ticket booth keepsake machete | 11/08/15 | | flesh public bath | 04/24/16 | | rambunctious trailer park wagecucks | 04/24/16 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: March 23rd, 2015 12:58 AM Author: Adulterous Heaven
In recent years, however, some influential scholars have shifted their attention to the harm caused by racist hate speech—to Words That Wound, as the legal scholars Mari J. Matsuda, Charles R. Lawrence III, Richard Delgado, and Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw called it in the title of their essay collection. They choose equality over liberty, fair speech over free speech. Relying on the principle of equality, they argue that racist speech is intrinsically harmful because it is wrong at its core. They argue that the ridicule to which it subjects minorities harms them as a group by holding them in an inferior social position, and as individuals by isolating and humiliating them. In addition, Lawrence argues, it “infects, skews, and disables” the marketplace of ideas, whose vitality Justice Holmes regarded as essential to American governance. Holmes advised “that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.”
The arguments about sexist and racist hate speech have prevailed at hundreds of colleges and universities, which have codes banning speech that offends because of what it says about sex or race. Since 1999, an organization called the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education—FIRE—has scrutinized the disciplinary policies at colleges and universities. It now reports that, of the 427 institutions studied, 59 percent have codes that “seriously infringe upon students’ speech rights,” though many institutions vigorously dispute that. FIRE has brought a series of successful lawsuits against public institutions, which are covered by the First Amendment and must uphold the free-speech rights of their faculty and students. Private institutions are not covered by the First Amendment and can adopt speech codes, but that doesn’t make them immune from FIRE’s vigilance. It calls them out for hypocrisy, because they claim to be bastions of academic freedom where all viewpoints can be expressed, whereas their speech codes are proof that they aren’t.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#27539213) |
Date: March 23rd, 2015 10:45 AM Author: Adventurous nibblets
I'm a lib and I agree with this perspective, but this is classic con-style arguing: "We COULD be right about the problems and therefore don't create any new ideas or systems." Cons make their idea as simple as possible and then say, well you agree with this don't you? No, because hate speech, sexual harassment and rape are huge problems at these universities, much bigger than the issue of restricted free speech (and they cause much greater harm to the victims). Of course we need to balance these competing objectives. But, currently, we should err on the side of solving these problems rather than allowing all speech. The issue is more complicated than: "1st amendment! 1st amendment!" Plus literally every conservative thinks it applies to private (e.g., but inevitably i.e., employer action), "they fired me because I kept tweeting racist rants supporting ted cruz, they violated my 1st amendment rights"
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#27540222) |
|
Date: March 23rd, 2015 10:53 AM Author: Tan multi-colored turdskin mad cow disease
"hate speech, sexual harassment and rape are huge problems at these universities, much bigger than the issue of restricted free speech"
damn boy. you got that slow flame cooker working early.
Harm caused by hate speech = 1,000,000 little microagressions burning in the pit of everyone's stomach
Harm caused by rape = literally 25% of all women are presently being raped at this moment
Harm caused by sexual harassment = at a college? lol. you got me trolled.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#27540254) |
|
Date: March 23rd, 2015 11:00 AM Author: Crawly university marketing idea
"But, currently, we should err on the side of solving these problems rather than allowing all speech."
The problem with this is you want to put the definition of forbidden speech in the hands of shitlibs, who are all too happy to eat each other alive to show how "enlightened" they are. Almost everything can be called hate speech. The Vagina Monologues, a bastion of feminism 10-15 years ago, is now hate speech to some b/c it's so "cis-bigoted" and not inclusive enough to the trans community.
Rather than ride that slippery slope, doesn't it make much more sense to allow ALL speech that isn't a direct threat or danger, rather than to allow some committee to subjectively decide what can be said?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#27540287) |
|
Date: November 8th, 2015 5:34 PM Author: Indigo bateful masturbator
one of my friends was wearing a dress during the summer on a crowded subway and some guy got up close to her (New Yorkers know how packed a train like the 4/5 can get during rush hour), put his hand up her dress and grabbed her pussy
totally right and ok according to you because it wasn't full-on rape
*rolls eyes*
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#29138866) |
|
Date: November 8th, 2015 5:59 PM Author: Outnumbered bonkers station
the issue is more complicated than the 1st amendment
the issue is more complicated than the 2nd amendment
the issue is more complicated than the 9th amendment
the issue is more complicated than the 14th amendment
that fucking constitution just doesn't respect my right to a safe zone!
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#29139019) |
Date: November 8th, 2015 5:36 PM Author: histrionic splenetic elastic band
Honestly I think most smart libs, even in academia, are not on board with the SJW squawking about hate speech, but they are curiously silent about it. Kind of like how most elite conservatives don't want to do anything insane like building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico but don't really say much about it.
The only issue where there is a clear divide is CU, where libs want corporate $$$ out of politics (excluding union money & media orgs, of course)
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#29138875) |
|
|